María Pilar Jiménez-Aleixandre

Argumentation in Science Education: An Overview

Charles Darwin once described On the Origin of Species as “one long argument”. This sentence can be viewed as embodying several of the different dimensions of argumentation discussed in this book. On the one hand, it provides evidence, coming from someone with undisputable authority, on argument being an integral part of the construction of scientific knowledge. On the other hand, when applied to the outstanding piece of scientific thinking that is On the Origin of Species, the description combines two aspects of argumentation. The first aspect relates to the justification of knowledge claims, by marshalling converging lines of reasoning (see Kelly, Regev, & Prothero, this book), theoretical ideas and empirical evidence toward a claim. Darwin weaved together population theory from Malthus, or uniformitarianism from Lyell, with empirical data gathered in his voyage to Central and South America in his bold claim of the theory of natural selection. A second aspect of argumentation has to do with argumentation as persuasion, in Darwin’s case as an attempt to convince an audience, composed both of scientists and of the general public, that the animals and plants had changed, that the species living on Earth descended from other species instead of having being created all at a time. Darwin was well aware that the task of persuading his contemporaries was not an easy one, such awareness being one of the reasons for delaying the publication of his book for about twenty years. In fact a joint presentation by Darwin and Wallace in the Linnean Society in 1858 stirred little interest, and the president of the Society summarised the year as one that “has not indeed been marked by any of those striking discoveries which at once revolutionize science” (Beddall, 1968, pp 304–305). However, one year later, the publication of Darwin’s book launched a great controversy, corresponding yet to another aspect of argumentation, as debate among two parties with contrasting positions on a subject. Argumentation, in whatever sense it is conveyed, is an integral part of science and we argue it should be integrated into science education. In this chapter, we present an overview of a line of research in science education whose main purpose has been exactly such attempts to make argumentation a component of instruction and learning. Indeed the field on argumentation in science education has been receiving growing attention in recent years. Firstly we outline a rationale for why should we, teachers or science educators, promote argumentation in science classrooms. Second we discuss different meanings of argumentation and some

Thinking about theories or thinking with theories?: a classroom study with natural selection

A classroom study was conducted among secondary school pupils in Vigo (Spain), with the purpose of testing strategies intended to enhance a conceptual shift from Lamarckian to Darwinian views. Instructional materials and strategies took pupils’ ideas into account, while the differences between experimental and control groups concerned the explicit comparison of the Darwinian model and their own Lamarckian ideas, on the hypothesis that both models are confused in pupils’ minds. While the pretest results of both groups were similar, significant differences appeared between them in post‐test and retest, with the experimental group showing better procedural knowledge. Educational implications are discussed.

‘Should We Kill the Grey Squirrels?’ A Study Exploring Students’ Justifications and Decision-Making

A problem that is still unexplored in the field of socioscientific issues (SSI) and that was explored in this study is how different students decide upon a SSI they are discussing, how their justifications change during the instruction and how they use (or not) the evidence from the learning environment to support their justifications. For the purposes of this study, two classes (12–13-year-old students) with diverse characteristics were selected from two different schools in the UK. Class A students, considered high achievers come from a white-British background. Class B students considered average achievers come from an Asian British background. The students engaged in discussions regarding a SSI (Should we kill the grey squirrel to save the red?), supported by an online learning environment. Students’ written arguments, classroom discussions, and classroom observations were collected and analysed. The findings suggest that even though the two classes engaged with the same learning environment, the decisions and justifications provided by the pairs in the two classes were quite distinct. The students used the evidence from the learning environment in ways which supported their decision, and tended to ignore evidence if these contradicted their decision. Furthermore, students’ justifications support the hypothesis that their decision was based on whether they identified with the actors of the issue. Implications for research include exploring how students identify with the actors of a SSI to enable us to support them overcoming their personal narratives and becoming critical evaluators of scientific knowledge.

Argumentation, Evidence Evaluation and Critical Thinking

This chapter addresses the relationships between argumentation and critical thinking. The underlying questions are how argumentation supports the capacity to discriminate between claims justified by evidence and mere opinion, and how argumentation can contribute to two types of objectives related to learning science and to citizenship. First, various meanings for critical thinking in different communities are reviewed. Then, we propose our characterisation of critical thinking, which assumes that evidence evaluation is an essential component, but that there are other components related to the capacities of reflecting on the world around us and of participating in it (e.g. developing an independent opinion, including challenging the ideas of one’s own community). This characterisation draws both from the notion of commitment to evidence and from critical theorists. Using this frame, the chapter examines the contributions of argumentation in science education to the components of critical thinking, and also discusses the evaluation of evidence and the different factors influencing or even hampering it. The chapter concludes with consideration of the development of critical thinking in the science classroom.

The development of a new science curriculum for secondary school in Spain: opportunities for change

As part of the educational reform approved in 1990, a new science curriculum for secondary education is beginning to be implemented in Spain, Some distinguishing features are; an extended period of debate and testing, beginning in 1983; a greater involvement of innovative teachers and associations in its production; and an explicit relationship with certain educational theories. The paper discusses how some controversial issues, such as co‐ordinated or separated disciplines, were handled; what happens to the designed curriculum once it gets to the classrooms; and some of the benefits and problems related to its implementation.

Different Music to the Same Score: Teaching About Genes, Environment, and Human Performances

There is agreement within the science education community on the contributions of argumentation about socio-scientific issues (SSI) to scientific literacy and to the development of critical thinking (Kolsto, 2006). SSI involves scientific arguments in addition to political, personal or ethical questions about what action to choose (Kolsto, 2006). It is suggested that argumentation about SSI makes scientific learning meaningful, as it provides a context that connects science with everyday problems where citizens are expected to make decisions, and requires taking an active role to solve controversies. Argumentation in these contexts involves not only applying scientific knowledge, but also developing an independent opinion in order to critically examine scientific claims and arguments, in other words, becoming a critical thinker (Jimenez-Aleixandre & Puig, 2010).

ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION AND CHANGE WHILE WORKING ON A REAL ENVIRONMENT PROBLEM

The process of collaborative construction of arguments about environmental management by 11th grade students working in small groups is studied. The question explored is the evolution of the students’ positions and arguments along a sequence shaped around an authentic — and real — problem: the impact of a drainpipe in a wetland of high ecological value; whether students kept their initial positions or changed them and the corresponding reasons. The collaborative construction is explored in terms of the dialogic voice (Mortimer & Scott, 2003). The participants were the 37 students in an 11th grade group and their teacher (the second author). The sessions were recorded in audio and video, and the data also include the students’ portfolios and essays. In this paper the transcriptions are analysed and the arguments represented using Toulmin’s (1958) layout. The analysis shows changes in the positions of 22 students, either radical, from positive to negative assessment, or shifts to balanced views. The causes for the changes and the co-construction of arguments are also discussed.

Epistemic Practices and Scientific Practices in Science Education

There is a growing consensus in considering that learning science involves students’ participation in the epistemic goals of science (Duschl, 2008; Kelly, 2008) or that, as Duschl (2008) proposes, science education should balance conceptual, epistemic and social learning goals.

Metalogue: SSI in Undergraduate Science Education

Sadler: This is a very interesting chapter in that it is features several unique elements as compared to most other chapters. Most other chapters deal with researcher-designed (or at least influenced) SSI-based interventions that are relatively limited in scope on the order of weeks. The chapter by Dana Zeidler and colleagues addresses a considerably longer curriculum (1 year), but Eastwood, Schlegel, and Cook explore SSI infused across an entire 4-year program. These authors also offer the only study of SSI situated in a college context. The work associated with designing and implementing this program is obviously extensive and the multifaceted research design and execution is equally ambitious. I commend the authors on both aspects of this work and believe that the broader community interested in SSI education can learn a great deal through this presentation.

Processes of Negotiation in Socio-scientific Argumentation About Vegetarianism in Teacher Education

This chapter discusses argumentative interactions about a socio-scientific issue with a focus on the processes of negotiation involved in building a shared argument in a decision-making context. Argumentative interactions can be seen as processes involving negotiations (Baker in The role of communication in learning to model. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 303–324, 2002, Argumentation and education: theoretical foundations and practices. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 127–144, 2009). This study examines how preservice teachers (N = 85; 20 small groups) negotiate a range of contents (negotia), such as task goals, strategies for carrying on the task, meanings, choices, and justifications for them. The context is a debate about diets, vegetarian versus omnivorous, a question involving dimensions such as nutritional, ecological (both of them scientific), ethical, socioeconomic, or cultural. The research objective is to examine the processes of negotiation about the choice or option to be agreed by the group (vegetarian, vegan, omnivorous), and about the evidence and justification to be employed to support the option, expressed in these research questions: (1) Which dimensions have greater weight in the negotiation processes and in the final decision? (2) Which patterns, in terms of strategies and negotiation levels, reveal the negotiation paths in four small groups? A detailed analysis of the negotiation in one group illustrates how it proceeds from opposed alternatives and initial rejections, through a series of offers and acceptances, involving actors in an appropriation of dialogical contributions from others, which finally made possible reaching a consensus through mutual concessions. The influence of the features of the task and its multidisciplinary dimensions, in particular cultural values, is discussed.